BBC Wins Key Pleading Ruling in Amersi Libel Claim
BBC Defamation Claim to Proceed Following High Court Judgment in Amersi v BBC [2025] EWHC 1323 (KB)
The High Court has confirmed that the defamation claim brought by businessman and political donor Mohamed Amersi against the BBC will proceed to trial, following a significant interlocutory judgment in *Amersi v British Broadcasting Corporation* [2025] EWHC 1323 (KB). In a ruling delivered by Mr Justice Jeremy Johnson, the Court rejected an application by Mr Amersi to strike out parts of the BBC’s truth defence and granted the broadcaster permission to amend its particulars. The judgment marks a key procedural success for the BBC and underscores the principled, forensic approach adopted by the English courts when assessing complex defences to libel claims, particularly where public interest journalism is engaged.
Background: The Allegations and the Claim
The proceedings arise from a BBC Panorama broadcast and an accompanying online article published in October 2021 as part of the international “Pandora Papers” collaboration. The programme investigated allegations of corporate misconduct by the Swedish telecommunications company Telia in Uzbekistan, a jurisdiction where Telia subsequently admitted to engaging in bribery and paid substantial penalties to US and Dutch authorities.
Mr Amersi was identified in the broadcast in connection with consultancy work undertaken for Telia during the relevant period. He alleges that the publications conveyed a defamatory imputation that he was knowingly involved in corrupt practices and, in doing so, seriously damaged his personal and professional reputation. He commenced proceedings in late 2022, seeking damages, injunctive relief, and a public retraction.
The BBC has defended the claim in its entirety, relying primarily on the statutory defences of truth and publication on a matter of public interest under sections 2 and 4 of the Defamation Act 2013.
Preliminary Meaning Ruling
In an earlier judgment delivered in April 2024, His Honour Judge Lewis (sitting as a High Court Judge) determined the natural and ordinary meaning of the words complained of. The Court held that the publications bore a defamatory meaning at common law, namely, that there were reasonable grounds to suspect Mr Amersi of knowingly participating in corrupt transactions on behalf of Telia.
Although the Court found that the meaning fell short of an express allegation of guilt, it nonetheless amounted to a serious defamatory imputation with reputational consequences of a high order. The BBC was therefore put to proof either that the meaning was substantially true or that the publication satisfied the requirements of responsible journalism on a matter of public interest.
The Challenge to the BBC’s Truth Defence
The case returned to the High Court in 2025 for determination of cross-applications concerning the scope of the BBC’s truth defence. Mr Amersi applied to strike out various particulars on the basis that they were irrelevant, lacked probative value, or risked prejudicing a fair trial—pointing in particular to references to entertainment provided to foreign officials and the scale of consultancy payments received. He contended that such material bore no rational connection to the imputation identified by the Court and should not be permitted to form part of the BBC’s defence.
In parallel, the BBC sought permission to amend its defence to incorporate further particulars in support of its truth plea. These amendments included additional contextual evidence and investigative material, including financial records and communications alleged to support the overarching narrative that Mr Amersi had knowledge of and involvement in corrupt arrangements.
High Court Judgment: Defence Allowed to Stand
In a reserved judgment dated 30 May 2025, Mr Justice Johnson refused most of the application to strike out and granted the BBC permission to amend its pleadings. The Court held that the truth defence, viewed in its entirety, disclosed a triable issue. The Judge accepted that while certain individual particulars might not independently prove the central allegation, they could form part of a cumulative evidential case.
Importantly, the Court emphasised that it is not the role of the interlocutory court to conduct a mini-trial on the merits of each pleaded fact. Provided the defence is properly particularised, relevant to the identified meaning, and not inherently incapable of establishing the defence if proved, it should be permitted to proceed to trial.
Mr Justice Johnson further observed that the proposed amendments were not a departure from the BBC’s original case but represented a permissible elaboration intended to ensure the defence was appropriately articulated. The amendments were not oppressive and would not cause unfair prejudice to the claimant.
The Judge did strike out part of the defence pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a)-(c). The Judge found that the BBC’s reference to the NRF review, which allegedly led to the termination of Mr Amersi’s engagement with Telia, was not directly relevant to the truth defence. It did not amount to primary evidence of corruption and risked giving rise to satellite litigation. It was vexatious and did not give details of matters on which the defendant could permissibly rely in support of its truth defence.
Implications and Next Steps
As a result of the ruling, the BBC retains its principal defences of truth and public interest, now bolstered by a more detailed factual matrix. The broadcaster will need to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the sting of the libel—that Mr Amersi was knowingly involved in corrupt transactions—is substantially true.
Should the BBC be unable to establish the truth defence, it may nevertheless rely on section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, which protects publication on matters of public interest where the defendant reasonably believed that publication was in the public interest and acted responsibly in doing so.
The matter is now listed for trial in June 2026. The trial is expected to involve contested oral evidence, expert analysis of corporate dealings, and detailed scrutiny of documentary material, including disclosures from the Pandora Papers.
Legal and Media Significance
The High Court’s ruling affirms that serious allegations must be justified by coherent and particularised pleadings but that courts will not prematurely exclude relevant material merely because it may ultimately fall short. The judgment also reaffirms the principle that public interest journalism occupies a protected space under English defamation law, albeit one which carries significant responsibilities and evidential burdens.
Further Reading
- Defamation Defences – An overview of available defences in libel claims, including truth and public interest.
- Malicious Falsehood – Guidance on claims involving false statements causing economic loss.
- Determination of Meaning in Defamation Cases – Understanding how courts ascertain the meaning of allegedly defamatory statements.
- Damages Awards in Defamation Claims – Insights into how damages are assessed and awarded in defamation cases.
- Offer of Amends – Exploring the statutory procedure for resolving defamation disputes through an offer of amends.
Speak to Our Defamation Solicitors
If you are facing a defamation claim or wish to bring one, our expert solicitors can advise you on the merits, defences, and legal strategy. We have extensive experience in media law, libel proceedings, and public interest journalism cases.
Contact Carruthers Law today:
- Contact Page
- Phone: 0151 541 2040
- Phone: 0203 846 2862
- Email: info@carruthers-law.co.uk
We act for clients across England and Wales. All enquiries are handled in strict confidence.